Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge James V. Go and Clerk of Court Ma. Emer M.

Rosales
( A.M. No. MJ!"#!$%%#& A'ril $"& ("$()
*acts+
A ,udicial audit and 'h-sical inventor- of 'ending cases .as conducted /- the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) in Munici'al rial Court in Cities (MCC)& 0ranch (& 0utuan
Cit- .here the res'ondent Judge 'resides. he audit team found that Judge Go failed to take
a''ro'riate action on $(%( criminal cases and 1( civil cases. he audit team also noted the
re'orts of some court officials and em'lo-ees that Judge Go .ould al.a-s leave the court in the
morning after finishing all hearings scheduled for the da- and .ould return onl- on the follo.ing
da-. 2hen the audit team confronted the ,udge& he re'lied that he leaves earl- to rest as he
suffered a stroke /efore& and that /eing a ,udge& he is not re3uired to render eight hours of service
a da-.
he OCA re3uired Judge Go to take a''ro'riate action on the criminal cases and civil cases that
have not /een acted u'on for a considera/le length of time and to resolve cases and 'ending
incidents or motions .hich has /een remained unresolved /e-ond reglementar- 'eriod. Judge
Go .as additionall- ordered to render eight hours of service ever- .orking da- 'ursuant to
various circulars of the Court.
he Court resolved to treat the ,udicial audit re'ort as an administrative com'laint for
gross inefficienc- and gross neglect of dut- against Judge Go and his clerk of court& Ma. Elmer
M. Rosales& and re3uired them to comment .ithin $4 da-s from notice. 5o.ever res'ondent
Judge instead .rote a letter den-ing all the allegations in the ,udicial re'ort.
6n a Resolution& the Court directed Judge Go full- com'l- .ith the directives regarding the
remaining cases that re3uire his immediate action and su/mit for com'liance. 5o.ever&
res'ondent ,udge again failed to com'l- .ith the Court7s directives.
Noting Judge Go7s de'lora/le failure to com'l- .ith the said directives& the OCA in a
Memorandum recommended to the Court that Judge Go /e dismissed from the service.
Issue:
2hether or not res'ondent Judge Go is still fit to continue as a mem/er of the /ench
Held+
Resolutions of this Court should not /e treated lightl-. As a ,udge& res'ondent must /e the first to
e8hi/it res'ect for authorit- Gas'ar v. Adaoag teaches+
Judges should res'ect the orders and decisions of higher tri/unals much more so this Court
from .hich all other courts should take their /earings. A resolution of the 9u'reme Court should
not /e construed as a mere re3uest and should not /e com'lied .ith 'artiall-& inade3uatel- or
selectivel-.
6n Guerrero v. Judge :era-& the Court held that a ,udge ;.ho deli/eratel- and continuousl- fails
and refuses to com'l- .ith the resolution of <the 9u'reme= Court is guilt- of gross misconduct
and insu/ordination.> his ruling .as reiterated in :ela Cru? v. Vallart and Vis/al v. ormis.
Also in Guerrero& this Court held that ;indifference or defiance to the Court7s orders or
resolutions ma- /e 'unished .ith dismissal& sus'ension or fine as .arranted /- the
circumstances.
6n the 'resent case the court found that Judge Go failed to heed the a/ove 'ronouncements.
5e did not file the re3uired comment to our sho. cause resolutions des'ite several o''ortunities
granted him /- this Court. 5is .ilful diso/edience and disregard to our sho.!cause resolutions
constitutes grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and .orthiness of the honour and
integrit- attached to his office. 6t is note.orth- that Judge Go .as afforded several o''ortunities
to e8'lain his failure to decide the su/,ect cases long 'ending /efore his court and to com'l-
.ith the directives of this Court& /ut he has failed& and continuousl- refuses to heed the same.
his continued refusal to a/ide /- la.ful directives issued /- this Court is glaring 'roof that he
has /ecome disinterested to remain .ith the ,udicial s-stem to .hich he 'ur'orts to /elong.
6n vie. of the foregoing& the Court found that the dismissal of the res'ondent ,udge from service
is indeed .arranted. his Court has long maintained the 'olic- of u'holding com'etence and
integrit- in the administration of ,ustice. 6ncom'etence and inefficienc- have no 'lace in the
,udiciar-. Res'ondent7s indifference to the charges against him onl- 'roves his lack of
commitment to the duties of his office& making him unfit to continue in 'u/lic service.
2herefore& res'ondent Judge James V. Go is dismissed from service.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Cander P.Indar
(A.M. No. RJ!$"!((1(& A'ril $"& ("$()
*acts+
his case .as originated from re'orts /- the @ocal Civil Registrars of Manila and
Aue?on Cit- to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the- have received an alarming
num/er of decisions& resolutions& and orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedl- issued /-
Judge 6ndar in his ca'acit- as Bresiding Judge in RC!9hariff Aguak and as acting Bresiding
Judge in RC Cota/ato. 6t .as alleged that Judge 6ndar made it a''ear that the annulment cases
under.ent trial& .hen the records sho. no ,udicial 'roceedings occurred.

o verif- the allegations against Judge 6ndar& the OCA conducted a ,udicial audit in
RC!9hariff Aguak& .here the Audit eam found that the list of cases su/mitted /- the @ocal
Civil Registrars of Manila and Aue?on Cit- do not a''ear in the records of cases received&
'ending or dis'osed /- RC!9hariff Aguak. @ike.ise& the annulment decisions did not e8ist in
the records of RC!Cota/ato. he Audit eam further o/served that the case num/ers in the list
su/mitted /- the @ocal Civil Registrars are not .ithin the series of case num/ers recorded in the
docket /ooks of either RC!9hariff Aguak or RC!Cota/ato. Moreover the ,udicial audit team
also found out that Judge 6ndar affirmed in .riting /efore the Australian Em/ass- the validit- of
a decision he allegedl- rendered& .hen in fact that case does not a''ear in the court7s records.
6ssue+ 2hether Judge 6ndar is guilt- of gross misconduct and dishonest-.

5eld+ Bu/lic office is a 'u/lic trust his constitutional 'rinci'le re3uires a ,udge& like an- other
'u/lic servant and more so /ecause of his e8alted 'osition in the Judiciar-& to e8hi/it at all times
the highest degree of honest- and integrit- As the visi/le re'resentation of the la. tasked .ith
dis'ensing ,ustice& a ,udge should conduct himself at all times in a manner that .ould merit the
res'ect and confidence of the 'eo'le.

6n Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez& the Court e8'lained the difference /et.een sim'le
misconduct and grave misconduct& thus+

he Court defines misconduct as ;a transgression of some esta/lished and definite rule of action&
more 'articularl-& unla.ful /ehaviour or gross negligence /- a 'u/lic officer.> he misconduct
is grave if it involves an- of the additional elements of corru'tion& .ilful intent to violate the
la.& or to disregard esta/lished rules& .hich must /e esta/lished /- su/stantial evidence. As
distinguished from sim'le misconduct& the elements of corru'tion& clear intent to violate the la.&
or flagrant disregard of esta/lished rule& must /e manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.

he Court condemns Judge 6ndar7s re'rehensi/le act of issuing :ecisions that voided marital
unions& .ithout conducting an- ,udicial 'roceedings. 9uch malfeasance not onl- makes a
mocker- of marriage and its life!changing conse3uences /ut like.ise grossl- violates the /asic
norms of truth& ,ustice& and due 'rocess. Not onl- that& Judge 6ndar7s gross misconduct greatl-
undermines the 'eo'le7s faith in the ,udiciar- and /etra-s 'u/lic trust and confidence in the
courts. Judge 6ndar7s utter lack of moral fitness has no 'lace in the Judiciar-. Judge
6ndar deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service.

he Court defines dishonest- as+

;dis'osition to lie& cheat& deceive& or defraudC untrust.orthinessC lack of integrit-C lack of
honest-& 'ro/it- or integrit- in 'rinci'leC lack of fairness and straightfor.ardnessC dis'osition to
defraud& deceive or /etra-al>.

6n this case& Judge 6ndar issued :ecisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases
.hen in fact he did not conduct an- ,udicial 'roceedings on the cases. Not even the filing of the
'etitions occurred. Judge 6ndar made it a''ear in his :ecisions that the annulment cases
com'lied .ith the stringent re3uirements of the Rules of Court and the strict statutor- and
,uris'rudential conditions for voiding marriages& .hen 3uite the contrar- is true& violating Canon
1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct .hich mandates that a ,udge ;'erform official duties
honestl-.>

WHEREFORE& the Court finds res'ondent Judge Cader B. 6ndar& Al 5a,& guilt- of Gross
Misconduct and :ishonest- for .hich he is I!"I!!E from the service.
Ramoncito and Juliana @uarca vs.Judge 6reneo 0. Molato
(A.M. No J!"D!$#$$& A'ril(1& ("$()
Facts:
9'ouses Ramoncito and Juliana @uarca (the @uarcas) and Jenn- Ag/a- charged Judge
6reneo 0. Molato .ith conduct un/ecoming a mem/er of the ,udiciar-. he- alleged that Judge
Molato and his .ife& Nilalina& enticed them to invest mone- in @uck- 9ocorro 6nvestor and
Credit Cor'oration (@uck- Cor'oration) of .hich Nilalina .as 'resident. hese investments
.ere to earn interest of (.4E 'er month /ut the said cor'oration did not 'a- the said interest.

he @uarcas and Ag/a- asked @uck- Cor'oration to return their investments .ith the
corres'onding interests. 0ut Judge Molato and his .ife failed to com'l-. he @uarcas and
Ag/a- .ere instead com'elled to take land titles as collaterals for .hat .ere o.ed them. 9till
Judge Molato and his .ife did not settle their financial o/ligations.


Issue:
2hether or not Judge Molato .as& a'art from /eing the hus/and of @uck- Cor'oration7s
'resident& involved in its affairs.

Held:
here is no evidence in these cases that Judge Molato engaged in a 'rivate /usiness&
undul- mi8ing it u' .ith his official .ork as ,udge. Com'lainants .ere themselves unsure of
the nature of Judge Molato7s involvement in @uck- Cor'oration. he- seem to connect him to it
/- the mere fact that the 'resident of that cor'oration ha''ens to /e his .ife.

6t is unmistaka/le from com'lainants7 testimonies that Judge Molato never used the fact
of his /eing a ,udge to entice them into 'utting mone- into @uck- Cor'oration. Juliana @uarca
said that she had decided to invest in that com'an- even /efore she met the ,udge.
9ection F of the Code of Conduct and Ethical 9tandards for Bu/lic Officials and
Em'lo-ees la-s do.n the norms of conduct .hich ever- 'u/lic official and em'lo-ee shall
o/serve in the discharge and e8ecution of their official duties& s'ecificall- 'roviding that the-
shall at all times res'ect the rights of others& and refrain from doing acts contrar- to la.& good
morals& good customs& 'u/lic 'olic-& 'u/lic order& and 'u/lic interest. hus& an- conduct
contrar- to these standards .ould 3ualif- as conduct un/ecoming of a government em'lo-ee.
<("=


A/sent an- sho.ing that Judge Molato defrauded com'lainants of their mone- or
committed acts that detract from the dignit- of his 'osition& the mere fact that the cor'oration of
.hich his .ife .as the 'resident had difficulties meeting its o/ligations does not 'er se make
him lacking in moral integrit- and of 3uestiona/le character as .ould make him lia/le for
conduct un/ecoming a ,udge.

Of course& there is evidence that the cor'oration7s 0oard of :irectors issued Resolution
$!(""" that authori?ed Judge Molato and three other 'ersons to serve as the com'an-7s alternate
/ank signatories& .ith their signatures a''earing on the document. 0ut com'lainants 'resented
no evidence that Judge Molato in fact 'erformed such function for @uck- Cor'oration. he
com'lainants 'resented no com'an- .ithdra.al sli's or checks .here his signature a''ears. No
evidence has /een adduced that he .as a stockholder of that cor'oration& 'roof that he engaged
in 'rivate /usiness .ithout the 9u'reme Court7s consent& or served as one of its cor'orate or line
officers.

9till& Judge Molato is to /e re'rimanded for agreeing to serve as one of @uck-
Cor'oration7s alternate /ank signatories even if he ma- not have 'erformed such service for the
cor'oration. 5e has no /usiness agreeing to the 'erformance of such service. 5is offense
constitutes a violation of Administrative Circular 4 .hich in essence 'rohi/its 'u/lic officials
from 'erforming or agreeing to 'erform functions or services outside of their official functions
for the reason that the entire time of the officials and em'lo-ees of the ,udiciar- shall /e devoted
to their official .ork to ensure the efficient and s'eed- administration of ,ustice.

WHEREFORE& the Court finds res'ondent Judge 6reneo 0. Molato of the Munici'al
rial Court& 0onga/ong& Oriental Mindoro& #$I%&' of violation of Administrative Circular 4&
dated Octo/er F& $GDD& and REPRI"A(! him for it.
Fidela )enco and &eresita )engco vs. Att*. Pa+lo !. )ernardo
,A.C. (o. -.-/0 June 1. 23124
Facts:
A com'laint for dis/arment .as filed /- com'lainants *idela G. 0engco and eresita N.
0engco against res'ondent Att-. Ba/lo 0ernardo (Att-. 0ernardo) for deceit& mal'ractice&
conduct un/ecoming a mem/er of the 0ar and violation of his duties and oath as a la.-er.Att-.
Ba/lo 0ernardo .ith the hel' and in connivance and collusion .ith a certain Andres Magat
<.ilfull-= and illegall- committed fraudulent act .ith intent to defraud herein com'lainants
*idela G. 0engco and eresita N. 0engco /- using false 'retenses& deceitful .ords to the effect
that he .ould e8'edite the titling of the land /elonging to the Miranda famil- of aga-ta- Cit-
.ho are the ac3uaintance of com'lainants herein and the- convinced herein com'lainant<s= that
if the- .ill finance and deliver to him the amount of <B=FG4&"""."" as advance mone- he .ould
e8'edite the titling of the su/,ect land and further /- means of other similar deceit like
misre'resenting himself as la.-er of 2illiam Gatchalian& the 'ros'ective /u-er of the su/,ect
land& and he is the one handling 2illiam Gatchalian7s /usiness transaction and that he has
contracts at NAMREA& :ENR& CENRO and REG69ER O* :EE:9 .hich re'resentation he
.ell kne. .ere false& fraudulent and .ere onl- made to induce the com'lainant to give and
deliver the said amount (<B=FG4&"""."") and once in 'ossession of said amount& far from
com'l-ing .ith his o/ligation to e8'edite and cause the titling of the su/,ect land& <.ilfull-=&
unla.full- and illegall- misa''ro'riated& misa''lied and converted the said amount to his
'ersonal use and /enefit and des'ite demand u'on him to return the said amount& he failed and
refused to do so.
Issue:
2hether res'ondent Att-.Ba/lo 0ernado is guilt- of deceit& mal'ractice& conduct
un/ecoming a mem/er of the 0ar and Violation of :uties and Oath as a la.-er.
Held:
6t cannot /e overstressed that la.-ers are instruments in the administration of ,ustice. As
vanguards of our legal s-stem& the- are e8'ected to maintain not onl- legal 'roficienc- /ut also a
high standard of moralit-& honest-& integrit- and fair dealing. 6n so doing& the 'eo'le7s faith and
confidence in the ,udicial s-stem is ensured. @a.-ers ma- /e disci'lined H .hether in their
'rofessional or in their 'rivate ca'acit- H for an- conduct that is .anting in moralit-& honest-&
'ro/it- and good demeanor.
here is no 3uestion that the res'ondent committed the acts com'lained of. 5e himself
admitted in his ans.er that his legal services .ere hired /- the com'lainants through Magat
regarding the 'ur'orted titling of land su''osedl- 'urchased. 2hile he /egs for the Court7s
indulgence& his contrition is shallo. considering the fact that he used his 'osition as a la.-er in
order to deceive the com'lainants into /elieving that he can e8'edite the titling of the su/,ect
'ro'erties. 5e never denied that he did not /enefit from the mone- given /- the com'lainants in
the amount of BFG4& """."".
he 'ractice of la. is not a /usiness. 6t is a 'rofession in .hich dut- to 'u/lic service& not
mone-& is the 'rimar- consideration. @a.-ering is not 'rimaril- meant to /e a mone-!making
venture& and la. advocac- is not a ca'ital that necessaril- -ields 'rofits. he gaining of a
livelihood should /e a secondar- consideration. he dut- to 'u/lic service and to the
administration of ,ustice should /e the 'rimar- consideration of la.-ers& .ho must su/ordinate
their 'ersonal interests or .hat the- o.e to themselves.
WHEREFORE0 in vie. of the foregoing& res'ondent Att-. Ba/lo 9. 0ernardo is found guilt- of
violating the Code of Brofessional Res'onsi/ilit-. Accordingl-& he is !$!PE(E from the
'ractice of la. for O(E ,14 'EAR effective u'on notice hereof.
Rodrigo A. Molina vs. Att-. Ceferino R. Magat
(A.C.No.$G""& June $1& ("$()
Facts:
he case stemmed from a com'laint for dis/arment filed /- Rodrigo A. Molina
(com'lainant) against Att-. Magat /efore the Court. he com'laint alleged& that com'lainant
filed cases of Assault I'on an Agent of a Berson in Authorit- and 0reach of the Beace and
Resisting Arrest against one Bascual de @eon (de @eon) /efore the Court of *irst 6nstance (C*6)
of ManilaC that the counsel of record for accused de @eon in /oth cases .as Att-. MagatC that a
case for slight 'h-sical in,uries .as filed against him (Molina) /- de @eon as a counter!charge
and Att-. Magat .as also the 'rivate 'rosecutorC that Att-. Magat su/se3uentl- filed a motion to
3uash the information on Assault u'on an Agent of a Berson in Authorit- on the sole ground of
dou/le ,eo'ard- claiming that a similar case for slight 'h-sical in,uries .as filed in court /- a
certain Bat. Molina (Molina)C that /ased on the record& no case of slight 'h-sical in,uries .as
filed /- Molina against de @eonC that Att-. Magat .as ver- much a.are of such fact as he .as
the counsel and 'rivate 'rosecutor on record of de @eon from the ver- start of the case .a- /ack
on Ma- (F& $G#FC that Att-. Magat7s act of filing the Motion to Auash .as a malicious act done
in /ad faith to mislead the court& thus& a /etra-al of the confidence of the court of .hich he is an
officerC and that Att-. Magat like.ise committed .illful diso/edience of the court order .hen he
a''eared as counsel for de @eon on t.o (() occasions des'ite the fact that he .as sus'ended
from the 'ractice of la..
Issue:
2hether or not res'ondent Att-. Magat committed .illful diso/edience to court order .hen he
a''eared as counsel des'ite his sus'ension.
Held:
he 'ractice of la. is a 'rivilege /esto.ed on those .ho sho. that the- 'ossess and continue to
'ossess the legal 3ualifications for it. 6ndeed& la.-ers are e8'ected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal 'roficienc- and moralit-& including honest-& integrit- and fair dealing. he-
must 'erform their four!fold dut- to societ-& the legal 'rofession& the courts and their clients& in
accordance .ith the values and norms of the legal 'rofession as em/odied in the Code of
Brofessional Res'onsi/ilit-.
Att-. Magat7s act clearl- falls short of the standards set /- the Code of Brofessional
Res'onsi/ilit-& 'articularl- Rule $"."$& .hich 'rovides+
Rule $"."$ H A la.-er shall not do an- falsehood& nor consent to the doing of an- in CourtC nor
shall he mislead& or allo. the Court to /e misled /- an- artifice.
6n this case& the Court agrees .ith the o/servation of the 60B that there .as a deli/erate intent on
the 'art of Att-. Magat to mislead the court .hen he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal
charges on the /asis of dou/le ,eo'ard-. Att-. Magat should not make an- false and untruthful
statements in his 'leadings. 6f it .ere true that there .as a similar case for slight 'h-sical in,uries
that .as reall- filed in court& all he had to do .as to secure a certification from that court that&
indeed& a case .as filed.
*urthermore& Att-. Magat e8'ressl- admitted a''earing in court on t.o occasions des'ite having
/een sus'ended from the 'ractice of la. /- the Court. Inder 9ection (#& Rule $1D of the Rules
of Court& a mem/er of the /ar ma- /e dis/arred or sus'ended from office as an attorne- for a
.illful diso/edience of an- la.ful order of a su'erior court andJor for corru'tl- or .ilfull-
a''earing as an attorne- .ithout authorit- to do so.
As stated& if Att-. Magat .as trul- moved /- altruistic intentions .hen he a''eared /efore the
trial court des'ite having /een sus'ended& he could have informed the Bresiding Judge of his
'light and e8'lained .h- the 'art- he .as re'resenting could not attend. On the contrar-& Att-.
Magat ke't his silence and 'roceeded to re'resent his client as counsel.
25ERE*ORE& Att-. Magat is sus'ended from the 'ractice of la.
Emilia R. 5ernande? vs. Att-. Venancio 0. Badilla
(A.C. No. G1D#& June ("& ("$()
Facts:
A dis/arment case .as filed /- Emilia 5ernande? (com'lainant) against her la.-er& Att-.
Venancio 0. Badilla (res'ondent) of Badilla Badilla 0autista @a. Offices& for his alleged
negligence in the handling of her case. he records disclose that com'lainant and her hus/and
.ere the res'ondents in an e,ectment case filed against them .ith the Regional rial Court of
Manila (RC).
Com'lainant claims that /ecause res'ondent ignored the Resolution of the court .ith
regard to their case& he acted .ith Kdeceit& unfaithfulness amounting to mal'ractice of la..K
Com'lainant and her hus/and failed to file an a''eal& /ecause res'ondent never informed them
of the adverse decision. Com'lainant further claims that she asked res'ondent Kseveral timesK
a/out the status of the a''eal& /ut Kdes'ite in3uiries he deli/eratel- .ithheldK to the damage and
're,udice of the s'ouses.
Res'ondent contended that he .as not the la.-er of com'lainant and that he had never
met com'lainant& /ecause it .as her hus/and .ho had 'ersonall- transacted .ith him.
According to res'ondent& he merel- drafted a 'leading that com'lainant7s hus/and asked from
him. Res'ondent also claims that he filed a Memorandum of A''eal& /ecause he Khonestl-
/elievedK that this .as the 'leading re3uired& /ased on .hat com'lainant7s hus/and said.
Moreover& as 'roof that none of them ever intended to enter into a la.-er!client relationshi'& he
also alleges that com'lainant7s hus/and never contacted him after the filing of the Memorandum
of A''eal. 5o.ever& the com'lainant 'ointed out in her Re'l- that res'ondent .as her la.-er&
/ecause he acce'ted her case and an acce'tance fee in the amount of B #&""".
Issue:
2hether or not there is an attorne-!client relationshi' entered into /- the 'arties as to
hold the res'ondent remiss in his duties as a counselL
Held:
Acce'tance of mone- from a client esta/lishes an attorne-!client relationshi' and gives
rise to the dut- of fidelit- to the client7s cause. Once a la.-er agrees to handle a case& it is that
la.-er7s dut- to serve the client .ith com'etence and diligence. Res'ondent has failed to fulfill
this dut- to his client.
he o/ligations of la.-ers as a conse3uence of their Canon 4 dut- have /een e8'ounded in
:ulalia& Jr. v. Cru?&

6t must /e em'hasi?ed that the 'rimar- dut- of la.-ers is to o/e- the la.s of the land and
'romote res'ect for the la. and legal 'rocesses. he- are e8'ected to /e in the forefront in the
o/servance and maintenance of the rule of la.. his dut- carries .ith it the o/ligation to /e .ell!
informed of the e8isting la.s and to kee' a/reast .ith legal develo'ments& recent enactments
and ,uris'rudence. 6t is im'erative that the- /e conversant .ith /asic legal 'rinci'les. Inless
the- faithfull- com'l- .ith such dut-& the- ma- not /e a/le to discharge com'etentl- and
diligentl- their o/ligations as mem/ers of the /ar. 2orse& the- ma- /ecome susce'ti/le to
committing mistakes.
Res'ondent& as counsel& had the dut- to inform his clients of the status of their case. 5is failure
to do so amounted to a violation of Rule $D."F of the Code& .hich reads+
$D."F ! A la.-er shall kee' the client informed of the status of his case and shall res'ond .ithin
a reasona/le time to the client7s re3uest for information.
6f it .ere true that all attem'ts to contact his client 'roved futile& the least res'ondent could have
done .as to inform the CA /- filing a Notice of 2ithdra.al of A''earance as counsel. 5e could
have thus e8'lained .h- he .as no longer the counsel of com'lainant and her hus/and in the
case and informed the court that he could no longer contact them is failure to take this measure
'roves his negligence.
@astl-& the failure of res'ondent to file the 'ro'er 'leading and a comment in the e,ectment case
is negligence on Inder $D."1 of the Code& a la.-er is lia/le for negligence in handling the
client7s case& vi?+
Rule $D."1 ! A la.-er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him& and his negligence in
connection there.ith shall render him lia/le.
@a.-ers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them& other.ise their negligence in
fulfilling their dut- .ould render them lia/le for disci'linar- action.(G
Res'ondent has failed to live u' to his duties as a la.-er. 2hen a la.-er violates his duties to
his client& he engages in unethical and un'rofessional conduct for .hich he should /e held
accounta/le.1"
25ERE*ORE& res'ondent Att-. Venancio Badilla is found guilt- of violating Rules $D."(&
$D."1& $D."F& as .ell as Canon 4 of the Code of Brofessional Res'onsi/ilit-. 5ence& he is
9I9BEN:E: from the 'ractice of la..
Juv- B. Ciocon!Reer et.al& vs. Judge Antonio C.@u/ao
(A.M. OCA 6B6 No. "G!1($"!RJ& June ("& ("$()
*acts+
Com'lainants are the 'laintiffs for Inla.ful :etainer& :amages& 6n,unction& etc.& an
a''ealed case from the Munici'al rial Court of General 9antos Cit-& 0ranch. Com'lainants
alleged that Judge @u/ao issued an Order directing the 'arties to su/mit their res'ective
memoranda. Com'lainants further alleged that& a co'- of the order .as sent /- registered mail to
the defendants& .hich the- should have received .ithin one .eek. Com'lainants alleged that the
1"!da- 'eriod .ithin .hich to su/mit memoranda has alread- e8'ired. 9ince the defendants
failed to su/mit their memorandum& com'lainants alleged that the- should /e deemed to have
.aived their right to adduce evidence and Judge @u/ao should have decided the case. Met& four
months 'assed and Judge @u/ao still failed to make his decision.
6n his Comment& Judge @u/ao e8'lained that the 'arties .ere re3uired to su/mit their
res'ective memoranda. he Order .as sent to the 'arties through registered mail. Judge @u/ao
alleged that the 'laintiffs su/mitted their memorandum /ut the court did not receive the registr-
return card on the notice to the defendants. he /ranch clerk of court sent a letter!re3uest to the
Bost Office of General 9antos Cit- asking for certification as to .hen the Order sent under
Registr- Recei't No. %G" .as received /- the defendants. 5o.ever& the court did not receive an-
re'l- from the Bost Office.
Judge @u/ao further e8'lained that for the greater interest of su/stantial ,ustice& the
defendants .ere given their last chance to su/mit their memorandum .ithin 1" da-s from recei't
of the order.
Judge @u/ao then informed the Court that one of the com'lainants& Rem/erto C. Naraan&
9r. (Naraan) is engaging in the 'ractice of la. even though he is not a la.-er. Judge @u/ao
asked this Court to re3uire Naraan to sho. cause .h- he should not /e cited in contem't for
unauthori?ed 'ractice of la..
Naraan filed a su''lemental com'laint alleging that Judge @u/ao7s failure to su/mit his
comment on time to com'lainants7 administrative com'laint is a violation of the e8isting rules
and 'rocedure .hich amount to gross ignorance of the la.. As regards his alleged unauthori?ed
'ractice of la.& Naraan alleged that Judge @u/ao .as merel- tr-ing to evade the issues at hand.
6ssue+
$. 2hether or not Judge @u/ao violated e8isting rules and 'rocedure .hich amounts to
gross ignorance of the la.
(. 2hether or not com'lainant Naraan is guilt- of unauthori?ed 'ractice of la.
5eld
$. Not all administrative com'laints against ,udges merit a corres'onding 'enalt-. 6n the
a/sence of fraud& dishonest- or corru'tion& the acts of a ,udge in his ,udicial ca'acit- are
not su/,ect to disci'linar- action. he Court that the remed- of the com'lainants in this
case is ,udicial in nature. As the OCA stated& Naraan could not make assum'tions as to
.hen the defendants received the co'- of Judge @u/ao7s order .ithout the registr- return
recei't. 2hile Naraan claimed that he kne. .hen one of the 'arties received a co'- of
the order& this claim .as unsu''orted /- evidence and .as not in the records of the case
.hen Judge @u/ao issued Order giving the defendants their last chance to su/mit their
memorandum. he records .ould also sho. that Judge @u/ao had /een ver- careful in
his actions on the case& as his /ranch clerk of court even .rote the Bost Office of General
9antos Cit- asking for certification as to .hen the Order sent under Registr- Recei't No.
%G"& .as received /- the defendants. here .as no evidence that Judge @u/ao acted
ar/itraril- or in /ad faith. *urther& Judge @u/ao could not /e faulted for tr-ing to give all
the 'arties an o''ortunit- to /e heard considering that the records of the case .ould sho.
that the court a 3uo summaril- dismissed the case .ithout issuing summons to the
defendants.
(.
6n Ca-etano v. Monsod&1 the Court ruled that K'ractice of la.K means an- activit-& in or
out of court& .hich re3uires the a''lication of la.& legal 'rocedure& kno.ledge& training and
e8'erience. o engage in the 'ractice of la. is to 'erform acts .hich are usuall- 'erformed /-
mem/ers of the legal 'rofession. Generall-& to 'ractice la. is to render an- kind of service .hich
re3uires the use of legal kno.ledge or skill. 5ere& the OCA .as a/le to esta/lish the 'attern in
Naraan7s unauthori?ed 'ractice of la.. 5e .ould re3uire the 'arties to e8ecute a s'ecial 'o.er
of attorne- in his favor to allo. him to ,oin them as one of the 'laintiffs as their attorne-!in!fact.
hen& he .ould file the necessar- com'laint and other 'leadings Kacting for and in his o.n
/ehalf and as attorne-!in!fact& agent or re'resentativeK of the 'arties. he fact that Naraan did not
indicate in the 'leadings that he .as a mem/er of the 0ar& or an- BR& Attorne-7s Roll& or
MC@E Com'liance Num/er does not detract from the fact that& /- his actions& he .as actuall-
engaged in the 'ractice of la..
Inder 9ection 1(e)& Rule #$ of the $GG# Rules of Civil Brocedure& a 'erson K<a=ssuming to /e an
attorne- or an officer of a court& and acting as such .ithout authorit-&K is lia/le for indirect
contem't of court. Inder 9ection # of the same rules& a res'ondent ad,udged guilt- of indirect
contem't committed against a Regional rial Court or a court of e3uivalent or higher rank.
@eticia G. Jacinto vs. Judge Jose'hus Joannes 5. Asis
(A.M. No. MJ!$(!$D$& June $1& ("$()
*acts+
Jacinto is the 'laintiff for unla.ful detainer. :uring the 'endenc- of that case& Judge Asis
/ecame the Bresiding Judge of that court and started 'erforming ,udicial functions. Judge Asis
issued an Order su/mitting the said case for decision. 0ecause of the failure of Judge Asis to
'rom'tl- render ,udgment on the case& Jacinto filed the 'resent Com'laint against him. 6n his
comment& Judge Asis alleged that he .as diagnosed of an illness in his left e-e and suffered a
sei?ure and a mild stroke .hile in the conduct of a trial. 5e alleged that he .as on an official
leave .hile conducting the trial. *urthermore& he also alleged that .as alread- ver- sick& .hich
rendered him una/le to act on the said case.
6ssue+ 2hether or not Judge Asis is guilt- of dela- in resolving the civil case
5eld+
Although res'ondent Judge Asis has a valid reason for not /eing a/le to decide the case
.ithin the 1"!da- reglementar- 'eriod& as re3uired /- the Revised Rules on 9ummar- Brocedure&
the same does not totall- a/solve him from administrative lia/ilit-. Res'ondent Judge Asis
himself admitted that his leave of a/sence .as onl- for the months of 9e'tem/er& Octo/er& and
Novem/er in the -ear (""#C and -et& the Motion for Reconsideration .as resolved on $G Octo/er
("$"& and the main case .as decided on the merits on (% Octo/er ("$" or after a 'rotracted
dela- of three (1) -ears. 6t is .orth noting that res'ondent Judge Asis acted on these 'ending
matters onl- after he .as directed /- the Office of the Court Administrator to comment on the
instant Com'laint.
Accordingl-& and at the ver- least& res'ondent Judge Asis should have re3uested for an
e8tension of time to decide the case soon after he re'orted /ack to .ork. 6f he did so& he .ould
have /een a/le to a''rise litigants as to the status of the case and the reason for the dela-.
5o.ever& he failed to do so. Judges are continuousl- reminded to resolve cases .ith dis'atch to
avoid an- dela- in the administration of ,ustice. hus& under 9ection G ($)& Rule $F" of the Rules
of Court& undue dela- in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious charge.
25ERE*ORE& Judge Jose'hus Joannes 5. Asis is found GI6@M of undue dela- in the
dis'osition of the case.
*e :. Valde? vs. Judge @i?a/eth G.orres
(A.M. No. MJ!$$!$#G%& June $1& ("$()
*acts+
Com'lainant alleged that she /ought com'rehensive insurance 'olic- for her motor
vehicle from Brudential Guarantee O Assurance& 6nc. (BGA6)& through /roker anC that she had
full- 'aid her 'remiumC that during the validit- of her insurance& the insured motor vehicle .as
damagedC that the re'air of the motor vehicle cost and BGA6 and an refused to 'a- her claim
des'ite several demands .hich 'rom'ted her to file a suit. Res'ondent 'roceeded to hear the
case in accordance .ith the Revised Rule on 9ummar- Brocedure. Almost a -ear had 'assed /ut
the case remained unresolved& 'rom'ting com'lainant to file a motion for immediate resolution
of the case /ut des'ite several motion filed /- the com'lainant& the case remained unresolved.
*rustrated /- the long .ait for the resolution of her case& com'lainant filed the 'resent
administrative com'laint against res'ondent& alleging unreasona/le dela- /- the latter in the
dis'osition of said case to the damage and 're,udice of the former.
6ssue+
2hether or not the res'ondent Judge is guilt- of dela- in resolving the civil case
5eld+
he 'leadings and evidence on record satisfactoril- esta/lish res'ondent7s guilt for the undue
dela- in resolving the said case.
As a general 'rinci'le& rules 'rescri/ing the time .ithin .hich certain acts must /e done& or
certain 'roceedings taken& are considered a/solutel- indis'ensa/le to the 'revention of needless
dela-s and the orderl- and s'eed- discharge of ,udicial /usiness. 0- their ver- nature& these rules
are regarded as mandator-. Judges are oft!reminded of their dut- to 'rom'tl- act u'on cases and
matters 'ending /efore their courts. Rule 1."4& Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct& directs
,udges to Kdis'ose of the court7s /usiness 'rom'tl- and decide cases .ithin the re3uired
'eriods.K Canons % and # of the Canons of Judicial Ethics further e8hort ,udges to /e 'rom't and
'unctual in the dis'osition and resolution of cases and matters 'ending /efore their courts& to .it+
%. BROMBNE99
5e should /e 'rom't in dis'osing of all matters su/mitted to him& remem/ering that ,ustice
dela-ed is often ,ustice denied.
#. BINCIA@6M
5e should /e 'unctual in the 'erformance of his ,udicial duties& recogni?ing that the time of
litigants& .itnesses& and attorne-s is of value and that if the ,udge is un'unctual in his ha/its& he
sets a /ad e8am'le to the /ar and tends to create dissatisfaction .ith the administration of ,ustice.
Administrative Circular No. $ dated Januar- (D& $GDD once more reminds all magistrates to
o/serve scru'ulousl- the 'eriods 'rescri/ed in 9ection $4& Article V666 of the Constitution& and
to act 'rom'tl- on all motions and interlocutor- matters 'ending /efore their courts.
Brom't dis'osition of cases is attained /asicall- through the efficienc- and dedication to dut- of
,udges. 6f the- do not 'ossess those traits& dela- in the dis'osition of cases is inevita/le to the
're,udice of litigants. Accordingl-& ,udges should /e im/ued .ith a high sense of dut- and
res'onsi/ilit- in the discharge of their o/ligation to 'rom'tl- administer ,ustice.
9tate Brosecutors 66 Josef Al/ert Comilang and Ma. Victoria9unega!agman vs. Judge Medel
Arnaldo 0elen
(A.M. No. RJ!$"!(($%& June (%& ("$()
*acts+
9tate Brosecutor Comilang a''eared /efore Judge 0elen of the RC of Calam/a Cit-
manifesting his ina/ilit- to a''ear on hursda-s /ecause of his in3uest duties. 5e moved that all
cases scheduled for hearing /efore Judge 0elen /e deferred /ecause he .as set to a''ear for
'reliminar- investigation in the Brovincial BrosecutorPs Office on the same da-.
6nstead of granting the motion& Judge 0elen issued his an Order re3uiring him to ($)
e8'lain .h- he did not inform the court of his 'reviousl-!scheduled 'reliminar- investigation
and (() to 'a- a fine.
:es'ite several motions filed /- Brosecutor Comilang& the res'ondent Judge cited him in
contem't for the alleged unsu/stantiated& callous and reckless charges included in his motions.
9tate Brosecutor Comilang filed .ith CA 'etition for certiorari and 'rohi/ition .ith
'ra-er for tem'orar- restraining order andJor .rit of 'reliminar- in,unction assailing the Judge
decision. CA issued a tem'orar- restraining order (RO) en,oining Judge 0elen from e8ecuting
and enforcing his assailed Order and :ecision. 5o.ever& Judge 0elen ignored the decision and
cited Comilang of indirect contem't for his alleged failure to com'l- .ith the Order issued /-
the Res'ondent Judge.
!tate Prosecutor Comilang filed a com5laint6affidavit +efore the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) charging Judge 0elen .ith manifest 'artialit- and malice& evident /ad
faith& ine8cusa/le a/use of authorit-& and gross ignorance of the la. in issuing the sho. cause
orders& su/'oenas and contem't citations& in grave defiance to the in,unctive .rit issued /- the
CA. 9tate Brosecutor Comilang alleged that Judge 0elenPs acts .ere intended to harass& o''ress&
'ersecute& intimidate& anno-& ve8 and coerce him& and to 'lace him in a disadvantageous and
com'romising 'osition& as he .as 'rosecuting the li/el case instituted /- herein com'lainant
9tate Brosecutor @agman against Judge 0elen .hen he .as still a 'racticing la.-er.
6ssue+
2hether or not Judge 0elenPs actuations sho.ed manifest 'artialit- and /ias& evident /ad faith&
grave a/use of authorit- and gross ignorance of the la. .arranting his dismissal from service
5eld+
6n the case of Besa-co v. @a-ague&($ the Court succinctl- e8'lained+
No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a ,udge shall /e faithful to the la.s and
maintain 'rofessional com'etence. 6ndeed& com'etence is a mark of a good ,udge. A ,udge must
/e ac3uainted .ith legal norms and 'rece'ts as .ell as .ith 'rocedural rules. 2hen a ,udge
dis'la-s an utter lack of familiarit- .ith the rules& he erodes the 'u/lic7s confidence in the
com'etence of our courts. 9uch is gross ignorance of the la.. One .ho acce'ts the e8alted
'osition of a ,udge o.es the 'u/lic and the court the dut- to /e 'roficient in the la..
Infamiliarit- .ith the Rules of Court is a sign of incom'etence. 0asic rules of 'rocedure must
/e at the 'alm of a ,udge7s hands.
hus& this Court has consistentl- held that a ,udge is 'resumed to kno. the la. and .hen the la.
is so elementar-& not to /e a.are of it constitutes gross ignorance of the la.. Veril-& failure to
follo. /asic legal commands em/odied in the la. and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of
the la.& from .hich no one is e8cused& and surel- not a ,udge.
his is /ecause ,udges are e8'ected to e8hi/it more than ,ust a cursor- ac3uaintance .ith statutes
and 'rocedural la.s. he- must kno. the la.s and a''l- them 'ro'erl- in good faith as ,udicial
com'etence re3uires no less. Moreover& refusal to honor an in,unctive order of a higher court
constitutes contem't& as in this case& .here Judge 0elen& in contumaciousl- def-ing the
in,unctive order issued /- the CA .
Judge 0elenPs actuations& therefore& cannot /e considered as mere errors of ,udgment that can /e
easil- /rushed aside. O/stinate disregard of /asic and esta/lished rule of la. or 'rocedure
amounts to ine8cusa/le a/use of authorit- and gross ignorance of the la.. @ike.ise& citing 9tate
Brosecutor Comilang for indirect contem't not.ithstanding the effectivit- of the CA!issued .rit
of in,unction demonstrated his ve8atious attitude and /ad faith to.ards the former& for .hich he
must /e held accounta/le and su/,ected to disci'linar- action.
25ERE*ORE& res'ondent Judge Medel Arnaldo 0. 0elen& having /een found guilt- of grave
a/use of authorit- and gross ignorance of the la.& is :69M699E: from the service.